Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

That is the price we pay to protect their religious liberty. Your freedom from their views is worth paying a cab right to another city for but theirs is more important...get with the program.

I *think* you were being sarcastic (?), but why shouldn't the OWNER of the business not have the right to operate his business as he sees fit by his beliefs?

What if we turned it around? What if we said that society had become one where government had fully become a function of a certain church. Let's say you owned and operated a little record store in downtown Poughkeepsie, and let's say you are also a HUGE fan of black metal, AND a very staunch athiest. The government then tells you that you MUST pay taxes to it, and it will use your taxes to promote the silencing of everyone who is atheist, and furthermore, tells you that you MUST sell music which promotes and/or is made by the state religion. More and more, people want state religion music, and not your black metal. More and more, people come into your store, demanding that music, and telling you that you must cater to them, or go out of business.

It's easy to be angry at religion and churches when it's something we disagree with. But we have to be careful in America, what we ask for.
Because in America, the sword is sharp on both sides. If you demand that government and government alone informs all laws and enforces all behavior in society, that can get very ugly, very fast. Try reading "The Gulag Archipelago" sometime, for an idea of how badly that can go.

I *think* you were being sarcastic (?), but why shouldn't the OWNER of the business not have the right to operate his business as he sees fit by his beliefs?

What if we turned it around? What if we said that society had become one where government had fully become a function of a certain church. Let's say you owned and operated a little record store in downtown Poughkeepsie, and let's say you are also a HUGE fan of black metal, AND a very staunch athiest. The government then tells you that you MUST pay taxes to it, and it will use your taxes to promote the silencing of everyone who is atheist, and furthermore, tells you that you MUST sell music which promotes and/or is made by the state religion. More and more, people want state religion music, and not your black metal. More and more, people come into your store, demanding that music, and telling you that you must cater to them, or go out of business.

It's easy to be angry at religion and churches when it's something we disagree with. But we have to be careful in America, what we ask for.
Because in America, the sword is sharp on both sides. If you demand that government and government alone informs all laws and enforces all behavior in society, that can get very ugly, very fast. Try reading "The Gulag Archipelago" sometime, for an idea of how badly that can go.

I was only being a little sarcastic. Religious liberty is all well and good but when you enter the market, the protections of your liberties, as a business owner reduce drastically and must comply with the laws of government.

The same applies to unsafe foods, health care, and other activities that may violate their faith. A business may not (without legal ramifications) turn away black or female patrons. Even though their faith may inform them that those groups of people are not to be treated with the same level of respect. I bring up these two examples, because we have documented cases of religions saying these groups are not on the same level of standing as their counterparts (almost every religion for women, and specifically Mormonism for black people).

If the government takes money and uses it to silence anyone, that is a problem. But this isn't a matter of silencing people. Its a matter of saying that if you plan to operate in the public market, then you will comply with the rules and regulations that everyone deals with and that your excuse for not complying will not be accepted. What you are listing is almost the textbook example of government establishment of religion and hence it represents a terrible counter-example to what I have proposed and support. I truly hope no one here equates requiring that every insurance purchaser be able to gain access to birth control or even abortion access to the establishment of a state religion.

Well, I couldn't disagree more with what you said. The person filling the script can also go somewhere else. Religious people need to have the right to live their faith wholly, with as least compromise necessary as possible, just as non-religious people have the right to NOT be forced to act contrary to THEIR convictions. If government law forces religious people to operate completely counter to their beliefs, then you're getting into governments that become not even just "nannies", but dictatorships, which quickly becomes bloody.

I'm gonna take a big ol' guess that there are some things that some religions are NOT gonna change about... but I won't be around in 200 years to tell, so there's really no way to argue that one.

Dude, I think you figured it out; "religous people" just need to get all their people to work at immoral establishments so they can refuse service to all us sinners out there. I'm talking liquor stores, porn shops, (apparently) pharmacies, hospitals, casinos, the EPA, etc. The world would be such a better place.

I watched the documentary Freakonomics this weekend. In it the author/economist talks about the main reason crime drastically reduced in the 90's from the insanely high level of the 80's is because of abortion being legalized in '73. Less unwanted kids = less crime. He also mentioned that most mothers that had aborted children eventually went on to have kids.

ewing

Originally Posted by dbroncos78087

I don't see any reason why they are different and deserve immunity from laws that other groups get quite frankly. Otherwise where does that argument end? Can they pick and choose which rules of society apply to them and which don't? Are they immune from health department rules for the meals they provide? Are they immune from the rules that govern the care of young children? Are they immune from rules that ban murder and honor killings? The list goes on and on which makes these types of immunities completely absurd.

If a private hospital chooses not to provide a certain service to which they are opposed how are they breaking the law? (please correct me if I am misunderstanding something)

ewing

Originally Posted by natepro

That should be exactly what we say to them, yeah. I feel the same way about pharmacists that don't want to dispense certain legal medications. I could care less why you got into it, you went into a business where you could be confronted with that choice, so it's on you, not on the person who was prescribed a legal medication by a doctor that happens to be against your, not their, beliefs. If you don't like it, you're more than free to go into another profession. You're not more than free, nor should you be, to effectively push you beliefs onto someone else.

Times change. Religious institutions are always reluctant to change with them, but in the end they always do. It doesn't matter if we're talking about slavery, or women's rights, or racial minorities, or homosexuality, or now contraception. The changes happens slower there than it does in the rest of society, as you'd expect from a dogmatic group, but it happens eventually either way. Adapt or die.

ewing

Originally Posted by natepro

That should be exactly what we say to them, yeah. I feel the same way about pharmacists that don't want to dispense certain legal medications. I could care less why you got into it, you went into a business where you could be confronted with that choice, so it's on you, not on the person who was prescribed a legal medication by a doctor that happens to be against your, not their, beliefs. If you don't like it, you're more than free to go into another profession. You're not more than free, nor should you be, to effectively push you beliefs onto someone else.

Times change. Religious institutions are always reluctant to change with them, but in the end they always do. It doesn't matter if we're talking about slavery, or women's rights, or racial minorities, or homosexuality, or now contraception. The changes happens slower there than it does in the rest of society, as you'd expect from a dogmatic group, but it happens eventually either way. Adapt or die.

What should we say to them, "you have to do what we say regardless" or "you have to do what we say or operate without gov't aid"?

Abortions are so incredibly sad. I wrote a paper on them once and after doing all that research let me tell you there were so man moments where I just felt sick to my stomach hearing what happens the unborn child. I dont even want to talk about it. Do the research yourself if you want, but I honestly dont know how ANYONE who is educated on the topic can still choose to have an abortion.

Abortions are so incredibly sad. I wrote a paper on them once and after doing all that research let me tell you there were so man moments where I just felt sick to my stomach hearing what happens the unborn child. I dont even want to talk about it. Do the research yourself if you want, but I honestly dont know how ANYONE who is educated on the topic can still choose to have an abortion.

So tell me, what by your definition, makes this a child. Is it when it is a blastosis, an embryo, when? Conception? go ahead, define your terms. I have done the research.

Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?

So tell me, what by your definition, makes this a child. Is it when it is a blastosis, an embryo, when? Conception? go ahead, define your terms. I have done the research.

For me?

It's conception. Which is what this debate comes down to for everyone. When do you consider life to begin?

I am all for women's rights, but as a pro-lifer, I wonder if anyone ever thinks of the 'childs rights' Doesn't the child have the right to life?

My issue is usually with inconvenient abortions. I don't want the child because it's not the 'right time' or whatever the reasoning is. Those are what bothers me. But, it's still the womans choice, and I respect their right to make their own choices.